Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: GARMIN G1000 vs PRE-GPS PANELS

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Red face GARMIN G1000 vs PRE-GPS PANELS

    Anyone out there have a comparison between the G1000 and earlier panels during emergencies?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly 2 View Post
    Anyone out there have a comparison between the G1000 and earlier panels during emergencies?
    Which type of emergency? I've got about 50hrs G1000 time and have never experienced an emergency, but have practiced relying on only the backup gauges below the glass.. for simple flying, they work just fine and you really don't need anything else. During a system failure - staying on track with an IFR flight, or radio communications, I think you'd be in tougher shape unless you had a backup handheld gps or Nav capable radio. I carry 3 GPS systems (handheld, iphone, ipad), as well as a handheld radio on all my flights after experiencing a radio failure going down Gastineau Chanel in Juneau last year (in an older non-glass plane). Btw, light gun signals work great and are surprisingly easy to see at 2000ft!.. However, not knowing if an Alaska Airlines jet is departing is nerve-wracking, hugging the mountain side as long as possible worked well though.

  3. #3
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    The weight difference between a few planes I have flown with glass vs the old panels seemed to be substantial.
    However, it was also a case of new planes vs older, so maybe there was more weight due to other items as well.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    The weight difference between a few planes I have flown with glass vs the old panels seemed to be substantial.
    However, it was also a case of new planes vs older, so maybe there was more weight due to other items as well.
    Yeah, even with the bigger engines they're a bit sluggish. And, if it's a Cessna, I surely do miss the last 10-degrees of flaps!

    On a couple that I've flown recently, though, the needle and ball are missing. BAD NEWS in case things go south . . . . . That was the reason for my original question.

  5. #5
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Well there's one question you didn't ask. Can the 1000 provide a standard rate turn for 30-seconds? Thats near bouts all ya need to do in most weather cases.....errrr .....except for not going Ha!.

    RR

  6. #6
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    I had (or at least I am pretty sure I had) xeroxed off copies of the W&B sheets from a couple of newer glass panel Cessnas that I ferried up or down. I have looked all over the place for the last couple days trying to find them with no luck...
    I do remember that while I was off the coast of BC in rather nasty clear icing that all that computer stuff was distracting while I was using he mini gauges to hand fly that gal into some drier air.

    Am I the only one who seems to think that the newer Cessna's have less aileron authority? Maybe the lawyered them just like they did the flaps years ago.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RocketRick View Post
    Well there's one question you didn't ask. Can the 1000 provide a standard rate turn for 30-seconds? Thats near bouts all ya need to do in most weather cases.....errrr .....except for not going Ha!.

    RR

    Yes, it can. But only it it's working . . . . .

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    I had (or at least I am pretty sure I had) xeroxed off copies of the W&B sheets from a couple of newer glass panel Cessnas that I ferried up or down. I have looked all over the place for the last couple days trying to find them with no luck...
    I do remember that while I was off the coast of BC in rather nasty clear icing that all that computer stuff was distracting while I was using he mini gauges to hand fly that gal into some drier air.

    Am I the only one who seems to think that the newer Cessna's have less aileron authority? Maybe the lawyered them just like they did the flaps years ago.
    They do seem to have less aileron authority. They now feel more like a Cub with ther teeny ailerons. I shouldn't admit this, but the Cessna line used to do pretty good aileron rolls. Super Cubs, though, seemed to take about a week to muddle through one.

    And, yes, I did have a 'chute. I was also flying over the ocean at Half Moon Bay, California at those times. The reason was so that I could check aileron response and control effectiveness. I DON'T RECOMMEND IT, OF COURSE.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern alaska
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    I don't know what kind of emergencies you are referring to? Are you asking about system failure (G-1000)? I'm going through a G-1000 upgrade this month...The G-1000 gives you a large choice of CAS messages on the PFD for emergencies...white, amber and red with gongs going off to snap you out of your stupor....saying hey stupid do something....what more do you want? As far as complete system failure goes, you should have an AS, AH and some type of engine gauges for back-up....

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    East Haddam , Connecticut
    Posts
    111

    Default

    I myself can't quite get over the 109 different function keys on the G-1000. My indoc to it was two take offs and two no flap landings and now take this New 182 to Europe. You can really get lost in the Menu's, a lot of information at your finger tips and a lot of information over load too. But its were Avionics is going. They have been around long enough to know that the system is very reliable. I like the XM Weather feed the best. You could get real lazy with flight planning and Navigation with it, then that would hold true for pretty much all of the aviation GPS's we now have. On that trip I had my own 196 Map and it kept me out of to much trouble along with a stack of VFR SEC and WAC charts. I was questioned why I would want up to date paper charts, its all in the box you see. It was either the charts or get some one else. You have to be willing to say no never the less.

  11. #11

    Default

    A pitts will do a good aileron roll as well

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pipercub View Post
    I don't know what kind of emergencies you are referring to? Are you asking about system failure (G-1000)? I'm going through a G-1000 upgrade this month...The G-1000 gives you a large choice of CAS messages on the PFD for emergencies...white, amber and red with gongs going off to snap you out of your stupor....saying hey stupid do something....what more do you want? As far as complete system failure goes, you should have an AS, AH and some type of engine gauges for back-up....
    I'm wondering about a COMPLETE power failure [burnt or burning wires?] without a needle and ball .............

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rppearso View Post
    A pitts will do a good aileron roll as well
    Snap rolls, too - - - which the P-51 won't do.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BH206L3 View Post
    I myself can't quite get over the 109 different function keys on the G-1000. My indoc to it was two take offs and two no flap landings and now take this New 182 to Europe. You can really get lost in the Menu's, a lot of information at your finger tips and a lot of information over load too. But its were Avionics is going. They have been around long enough to know that the system is very reliable. I like the XM Weather feed the best. You could get real lazy with flight planning and Navigation with it, then that would hold true for pretty much all of the aviation GPS's we now have. On that trip I had my own 196 Map and it kept me out of to much trouble along with a stack of VFR SEC and WAC charts. I was questioned why I would want up to date paper charts, its all in the box you see. It was either the charts or get some one else. You have to be willing to say no never the less.
    I agree. But when I'm not on solid instruments, I'm not fond of keeping myself busy with my head in the cockpit. I'll ALWAYS want the needle, ball, and airpsed. As they accurately say: KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid].

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    I had (or at least I am pretty sure I had) xeroxed off copies of the W&B sheets from a couple of newer glass panel Cessnas that I ferried up or down. I have looked all over the place for the last couple days trying to find them with no luck...
    I do remember that while I was off the coast of BC in rather nasty clear icing that all that computer stuff was distracting while I was using he mini gauges to hand fly that gal into some drier air.

    Am I the only one who seems to think that the newer Cessna's have less aileron authority? Maybe the lawyered them just like they did the flaps years ago.
    I don't have any experience with old(er) 172s, but I am currently flying G1000 172s for my flight training. All of the ones I have flown are upwards of 1700lbs empty. Aileron and rudder response are very heavy, and seem to be as slow or slower than my tcart. However I think it would be easier to learn (for instrument, not primary) in a complicated system and then transfer to steam gauges then the other way around.

    ETA- They also have O-360s that have been de-rated to 160hp, go figure.
    -Out-of-State for school, remembering why I love Alaska so much

  16. #16
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    Hmm.
    Well one of my local students has an old 1958 C-172 that weighs 1,371 pounds empty. 40 degree flaps and full throw *(pre ambulance chasing lawyer) ailerons. But the legal gross is only 2200 pounds.

    One of the 180 horse converted C-172s that the CAP sends down here from time to time instead of the C-182 has a legal gross of 2,550 pounds and has a 1,573 pound empty weight.(with all sorts of radio gear including trooper radios and a Becker direction finder.)
    So your glass panel version is about 100 pounds heavier.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    96

    Default

    GW of 2450. It is nice for training, but not for real world I think.
    -Out-of-State for school, remembering why I love Alaska so much

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •